PATEL KALIDAS JOITARAM Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule. Shri RC Kodekar, learned APP waives service of Rule on behalf of the State. As common question of law and facts arise in this group of Special Criminal Applications, they are being disposed of by this common judgment and order.

(2.) All the petitioners are accused in Criminal Complaint, being C.R. No. I-8 of 2006 registered with CID Crime, Gandhinagar, for the offences punishable under Section 409, 465, 467, 471, 477A, 120-B of the Indian Penal Code. All the petitioners were granted anticipatory bail by learned Judge, City Civil Court at Ahmedabad and thereafter they were released on regular bail by learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Ahmedabad, vide order dated 12th January 2007. The State of Gujarat has filed four different Criminal Misc. Applications for cancellation of bail granted to the respective petitioners by the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Ahmedabad. All those applications were placed before learned Additional City Sessions Judge, Court No.8 at Ahmedabad, Shri M.T. Unadkat for hearing on 22.1.2007 and thereafter the same came to be adjourned time and again and on 30th March 2007 the same came to be adjourned to 2nd April 2007. It is the case on behalf of the petitioners that from 1.4.2007 the Court business changed and the business of Criminal Misc. Applications was alloted to learned Additional City Sessions Judge at Ahmedabad, Shri P.P. Bhatt. On 2.4.2007 all the aforesaid Criminal Misc. Applications were placed for hearing before the learned Additional City Sessions Judge, Court No. 8, Ahmedabad, Shri M.T. Unadkat however according to the petitioners as the Court business was changed and the business of Criminal Misc. Applications was allotted to another Court No.6 at Ahmedabad, Shri P.P. Bhatt the said applications could not have been heard by the learned Additional City Sessions Judge at Ahmedabad, Shri M.T. Unadkat and therefore the respective petitioners submitted an application to send the Criminal Misc. Applications back to the Criminal Department for placing the same before the learned Additional City Sessions Judge, Ahmedabad, Shri P.P. Bhatt. The said applications were submitted vide Exhibit 8. All the applications in the respective Criminal Misc. Applications came to be rejected by the learned Additional City Sessions Judge, Court No.8, Shri M.T. Unadkat vide order dated 19th April 2007. The learned Additional City Sessions Judge, Court No.8 Shri M.T.Unadkat while dismissing the aforesaid applications also observed that in another criminal case being Criminal Misc. Application No. 4626 of 2006 written arguments were submitted by the original-accused and it was kept for final decision along with other matters as common question was involved in all the cases as regards the competence of the learned Magistrate granting bail under Section 409 of the Indian Penal Code punishable with imprisonment for life. The learned Additional City Sessions Judge, Court No.8, Shri Unadkat also observed that the accused persons are at liberty to get transfer of these matters by adopting necessary procedure i.e. By submitting appropriate applications before the learned Principal City Sessions Judge. It appears that thereafter all the petitioners herein submitted applications being Criminal Misc. Applications No. 1605 of 2007, 1623/2007, 1624/2007, 1625/2007 and 1626/2007 before the learned Principal Judge to withdraw the main Criminal Misc. Applications pending in the Court of Additional City Sessions Judge, Court No.8, Shri M.T. Unadkat and allotted the same to the Court having business, i.e., to the Court of learned Additional City Sessions Judge, Court No.6, Shri P.P. Bhatt. All these applications came to be heard by the learned Principal City Sessions Judge,who by his common order dated 9th May 2007 dismissed all the applications by observing that learned Judge, Court No.8 Shri M.T. Unadkat has kept with him the abovereferred Misc. Criminal Applications as they were heard on 31.3.2007. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the common order dated 9th May 2007 passed by the learned Principal City Sessions Judge in Criminal Misc. Applications No. 1605 of 2007, 1623/2007, 1624/2007, 1625/2007 and 1626/2007 the petitioners have preferred the present Special Criminal Applications.

(3.) Shri RM Agrawal, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the respective petitioners has submitted that in the Rojkam there was no mention by the learned Additional City Sessions Judge, Court No. 8 at Ahmedabad Shri M.T. Unadkat that the matter is part-heard and when the business is changed the Criminal Misc. Applications are not required to be heard by the learned Additional City Sessions Judge, Court No.8 Shri M.T. Unadkat and are required to be transferred and/or heard by learned Additional City Sessions Judge, Shri P.P. Bhatt who is allotted the work of Criminal Misc. Applications with effect from 1.4.2007. It is submitted by Mr. Agrawal that it is only the learned Principal City Sessions Judge who can allot the work and/or the business and even otherwise as per the Roster the matters are to be placed before the appropriate Court, i.e., in the present case the learned Additional City Sessions Judge, Ahmedabad, Court No.6, Shri P.P. Bhatt and therefore it is submitted that the Criminal Miscellaneous Applications No. 335/2007, 336/2007, 337/2007 and 756/2007 are required to be transferred from the Court of Additional City Sessions Judge, Court No.8 Shri M.T. Unadkat to the Court of learned Additional City Sessions Judge, Court No.6 Shri P.P. Bhatt. Shri Agrawal has heavily relied upon a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Rajasthan Vs. Prakash Chand And Others, 1998 1 SCC 1 in particular Para No.4 thereof as well as decision of learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of Gambhirsinhji Bhavsinhji Padheriya vs. State of Gujarat,34 1 GLR 649 in support of his above submission and prayer. It is also further submitted by him that the concerned Judge cannot retain the matter though the business is changed and he cannot retain the same though in the Rojkam à ¢ ¬SPART HEARDà ¢ ¬Ãƒ 1/2 is not mentioned without permission of the Principal Judge, i.e., City Sessions Judge, Ahmedabad. Therefore it is requested to allow all the present Special Criminal Applications by transferring the Criminal Miscellaneous Applications for cancellation of bail to the Court No.6 of learned Additional City Sessions Judge, Shri P.P.Bhatt.